Reasons for choosing a Vegetarian Diet

[Dardedar]

Years ago, about 1990 I read a few books about it and finally got around to becoming a vegetarian. About that time the Iraq war was raging and I was getting a little radical, even thinking about joining a commune. The right wing nuts at the store I was working at were cheerleading the war and the bombs dropping on the TV and it was making me sick to my stomach. It was interesting to observe how my abstinence from meat seemed to piss people off. They demanded reasons and they seemed positively put off by my diet choice. So, tiring of giving a few lame reasons each time I was confronted I decided to sit down and put together a little hand out. I was about 24 and didn't remotely have the skeptical/discernment skills I have developed since so I don't expect a lot of this to hold up very well. I will not defend all of it!

I quit eating red meat because it wasn't agreeing with my digestive system (I grew up on a dairy farm so I ate enough for a lifetime anyway). I also quit booze for several years back then as well. I always ate eggs and dairy but years later slowly trickled back to eating chicken. It makes it much easier to at restaurants. After seeing the film Forks Over Knives I am thinking of going back to more emphasis on the plants, better quality food, less poultry and dairy. Nothing radical really, it's just that since I'll be 45 in a month or so, I would like to lock in some good long term heath practices. I want to be one of those buggers who is active into the 80's.

Anyway, here is the little package I put together about 20 years ago, as reasons for my choice for a vegetarian diet. Maybe I should revisit the project, update it and improve it. "Beef it up" a bit so to speak.

After having so many debates with climate change deniers, smoking causes disease deniers, etc., after snooping around the internet it's interesting to see how controversial diet is. Just as addiction to political ideologies seems to drive climate change denial, and tobacco addiction mostly drives smoking/disease denial, perhaps it is food addiction and addiction to our particularly crappy sugar/fat/salt laden variants that drives resistance on this topic as well? Or perhaps it's just good solid science? Let's duke it out.

Three sections: Health, Waste, Cruelty

***
HEALTH

1. An animal-based diet is invariably high in saturated fat, animal protein and cholesterol, which raises the level of cholesterol in the blood - the warning signal for heart disease and stroke. Due to the meat-centered diet of most Americans, these diseases account for nearly 50% of all deaths in the U.S.

2. In a March, 1984 cover story, Time magazine reported the latest findings regarding cholesterol and heart disease. They noted that "in regions where ... meat is scarce, cardiovascular disease is unknown."

3. Whereas the average risk of death from a heart attack for a man in the U.S. is 50%, it is only 15% for someone who doesn't eat meat and 4% for a pure "vegan" who eats no animal products at all.

4. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Food and Nutrition Board recommend that eating a mere 2.5% to 6% of one's calories as protein adequately satisfies protein requirements. It is almost impossible to get below 9% with an ordinary vegetarian diet. Today's average American excessively eats 28% of his or her calories as animal protein and an additional 12% as non-animal protein.

5. Meat-centered diets are linked to many kinds of cancer, most notably of the colon, breast, cervix, uterus, ovary, prostate and lung.

6. Factory-farmed animals contain as much as 30 times more saturated fat than yesterday's free-range, pasture-raised animals. Americans also now eat twice as much meat as they did 50 years ago.

7. The human intestine is not designed to digest meat. Where a natural carnivore bowel is relatively short (3 times the length of its body) and smooth inside, a human's bowel is 12 times the length of the body and deeply twisted and puckered. Having no fiber of its own, meat quite arduously inches itself through the long convoluted human digestive tract. Before it gets to the end it often has become putrid and toxic to the body.

8. The National Cancer Research Institute found that women who eat meat on a daily basis are almost 4 times more likely to get breast cancer than those women who eat little or no meat. This year approximately 186,000 women (and 1000 men) will get breast cancer.

9. Drug fed animals are supposed to have their dosage stopped at a certain interval before slaughter. Withdrawal schedules, however are not always properly followed, if at all. Troughs of old, drug-laden feed may not be cleaned away when withdrawal should begin. Also, since animals are often fed animal waste and flesh, drug and pesticide residues continue to be recycled.

10. The allied naval blockade during World War 1 of German-occupied territories in 1917 forced Denmark most dramatically into nationwide vegetarianism. The death rate there from disease during the period dropped by 34%.

11. About 98% of all milk is produced with factory methods in the US. Today's factory cow is fed dangerous levels of hormones to produce two to three times more milk than yesterday's pasture cow. After about four years, the hormones no longer work and the spent cow becomes your hamburger. Slaughter day will end the agony of mostly solitary, intense confinement where this animal has never seen a blade of grass. A cow naturally lives 20 years.

12. The common cold, as well as allergies to dust, cats and pollen, are more likely to go away when milk is taken out of the diet. No other mammal in nature drinks milk after weaning, nor drinks the milk of other species, as do humans.

13. There are 20-30 thousand animal drugs currently in use. As many as 90% have not been approved by the FDA. Fifteen million pounds of antibiotics are used in animal production every year. In 1988, animal drug sales came to $2.5 billion.

14. The U.S. is the only completely industrialized country to still allow the implantation of hormones into beef cattle today. Because of the routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock, European countries have banned nearly all imports of American beef.

15. Today, animals are packed indoors and kept alive with drugs and vitamin injections. The battle against bacteria in the factory farm shed is a constant concern. Misting the animals with insecticides has become routine. In the chicken house, the birds are fed chemicals to control flies which stay active in their droppings (and flesh?), able to kill larvae.

16. Meat contains approximately 14 times more pesticides than plant foods; dairy products contain 5-1/2 times more pesticides than plant foods.

17. Nearly all (95% - 99%) toxic chemical residues in the American diet come from animal sources. Toxic chemical management today amounts to no more than self-regulation by the chemical companies. The Environmental Defense Fund estimates that, on average, each American has 1.5 grams of DDT in his or her body.

18. Fish are living magnets for toxic chemicals. According to Consumer Reports (Feb., '92), a notable incidence of unacceptable levels of PCB's and mercury were found in certain species of fish that were tested. Ingesting PCB's is considered a chief reason for the sperm count among American men to be 70% of what it was 30 years ago. Today, half the worlds fish catch is fed to cattle.

19. An animal at the top of the food chain will accumulate in its own flesh and fat most of all the toxic substances of its prey, its prey's prey, and so on. Due to the excessive use of pesticides, insecticides and petrochemical fertilizers on cropland, the injection of hormones and antibiotics into farm animals, and the abundance of PCB's and mercury in our oceans, there is toxicity in the flesh of all animals people eat. Today, more than ever, it is wise to eat "low on the food chain." with plant food being the lowest and safest.

20. Nearly half the fish tested in a 6 month investigation by Consumers Union were found to be contaminated by bacteria from human or animal feces, suspected to be the result of poor sanitation practices in one or more points along the fish handling process.

21. No law in the U.S. requires seafood inspection. The food and Drug Administration is for the most part, the only regulator over the fishing industry at all. Only 1,604 fish were checked by the FDA in 1989.

22. Four different surveys of the U.S. milk supply were conducted by independent researchers between 1987 and 1989. The studies found between 63 and 86 percent of milk samples to contain sulfa drugs, tetracyclines, and other antibiotics. A March '88 FDA survey found sulfamethazine (a sulfa drug that is a suspected human carcinogen) in 74% of the samples tested. After this test the FDA took steps to eliminate the use of sulfamethazine in milk production. In December '89 a survey sponsored by the Wall Street Journal found drug residues including penicillin and sulfa drugs in 38% of milk samples taken from 10 major cities.

23. Cattle need roughage for their digestive systems to function properly. In this world of hi-tech farming traditional hay is now often replaced by "exotic feeds," which include plastic hay (pellets made of 85% ethylene and 15% propylene), sawdust, bark, newspapers, cardboard scraps, poultry litter, feathers, and industrial sewage. According to the USDA, cement dust may become a feed additive in the future because it produces a 30% faster weight gain than regular feed.

24. The USDA does not inspect for trichinosis in pork, and it is widely known that pork must be thoroughly cooked before eating. Still, about 4% of Americans have trichinella worms in their muscles which periodically cause flu-like symptoms.

25. Chicken feed today is routinely laced with hormones and antibiotics. Only by maintaining the birds on drugs, a practice which began about mid-century, is agri-business allowed the luxury and efficiency of massive flocks and intensive confinement. Today's medicated feed also pumps out market weight birds in half the time from two-thirds the feed of 50 years ago.

26. Chicken feathers, guts, and waste water, which normally need to be discarded during processing, are routinely "recycled" back to the layer and broiler houses as feed. Industry experts believe that along with unclean slaughtering and processing techniques, this forced cannibalism is leading to rampant salmonella in poultry plants. Ignoring these root causes, the U.S. government recommends food irradiation to "sanitize" contaminated birds.

27. Detection of salmonella is not required of meat packers by the USDA. There is not a single plant in the country that inspects for it. CBS's "60 Minutes" found half of the chickens they randomly bought at a supermarket contaminated with salmonellosis.

28. The treatment of human disease with antibiotics is showing signs of being hampered by the flagrant overuse of antibiotics injected into to the animals people eat (55% of all antibiotics used yearly in the U.S.). To the surprise of scientists, by the end of the 60's, epidemics caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria were being reported around the world. Studies have since shown that bacteria can acquire multiple resistance to antibiotics and that they can pass that resistance on to other bacteria. As people have to take stronger and stronger drugs to have the desired effect, it is predicted that we might enter into a pre-antibiotic era.

29. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group of 3,000 physicians, came out in 1991 with the "New Four Food Groups." They are: fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. Meat, poultry, fish, nuts, seeds, and oils have been termed "optional" foods, not considered necessary for health.

30. The world's longest ongoing investigation into heart disease and diet, the Framingham Heart Study, was begun in 1949. The director, Dr. William Castelli when asked if he could say which food choices are the best, responded: "Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rates of coronary disease of any group in the country.... Some people scoff at vegetarians, but they have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40% of our cancer rate. On average they outlive others by about six years."

***
WASTE

31. Meat contains no essential nutrients that cannot be obtained directly from plant sources. By cycling grain through livestock, we lose 90% of the protein, 96% of the calories, 99% of its carbohydrates, and 100% of the fiber.

32. Agricultural engineers have compared the energy costs of producing poultry, pork and other meats with the energy costs of producing a number of plant foods. It was found that even the least efficient plant food was nearly 10 times as efficient in returning food energy as the most energy efficient animal food.

33. Approximately 1.28 billion cattle populate the earth at any one time. They are sustained unnaturally in these numbers to satisfy the excessive human demand for their flesh. Their combined weight exceeds that of the entire human population. Their sheer numbers (and consequent appetite for the world's resources) have made them one of the primary causes for the destruction of the environment. In the U.S., beef cattle return to us only 1 pound of meat for every 16 pounds of grain and soybeans they are fed.

34. Meat industry defenders claim that livestock do not compete with humans for edible food because they live on forage humans cannot eat. Actually, the livestock population of the U.S. today, consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed more than five times the number of humans in the country. These animals are fed 80% of all the corn, 95% of all the oats, and 70% of all the grain grown in the U.S. In fact, 50% of all grain produced in the world is fed to livestock.

35. The world's cattle alone (not including other livestock such as pigs and chickens) consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people - nearly double the entire human population. Hundreds of millions of tons of grain go to animals while only 5 million tons of grain could adequately feed 15 million children throughout the world, the approximate number who starve to death every year.

36. Our dwindling supply of good water is directly tied to meat consumption. Over half of the total amount of water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock.

37. It takes an average of 2,500 gallons of water to produce a single pound of meat. According to Newsweek, "The water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer could float a destroyer". In contrast, it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat.

38. The great Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies the nation's bread basket with water, is being pumped dry, primarily due to agribusiness growing grain to feed livestock. Spanning over 8 midwestern states with an area three times the size of the state of New York, this natural blessing from the last Ice Age may be gone in 30 years.

39. Spinach grown on an acre of land can yield 26 times more protein than beef produced on the same acre. Calorie for calorie, spinach has 14 times the iron of sirloin steak.

40. Livestock in the U.S. produce 20 times the excrement of the entire U.S. population. Since farm animals today spend much or all of their lives in factory sheds or feedlots, their waste no longer serves to fertilize pastures a little at a time. Eighty-two tons of waste per week is produced in a hen house of 60,000 birds. An average feedlot steer produces over 47 pounds of manure every twenty-four hours. The livestock operator may properly store or disperse this animal waste. Or he may simply flush it away, dangerously raising ammonia and nitrate levels in our drinking water. Becoming a vegetarian does more to clean up the nation's water than any other single action.

41. At the expense of their own hungry populations, exporters in poor countries will produce luxury foods such as meat for sale to rich countries. Meat is much more profitable to produce than subsistence crops of rice, beans and vegetables.

CRUELTY

42. About 7 billion farm animals, mostly chickens, die or are slaughtered in the U.S. every year (28 animals per person) for the production of meat.

43. Aside from the prospect of certain species of fish becoming extinct from overfishing, demand for ocean fish contributes to the over 200,000 deaths of marine mammals and birds caught in nets each year.

44. There are virtually no laws against cruelty to animals raised for food in the U.S. The Animal Welfare Act, which governs the humane treatment of animals, excludes animals intended for food consumption.

------------------
References:

1. Robbins, John, Diet for a New America Stillpoint Publishing, Wapole, NH, 1987, pp. 206, 208.
-also, Campbell, M.D., T. Colin; his speech to the 1991 American Natural Hygiene Society Conference about his involvement in, and the findings of, The China Study.
2. Diet for a New America, p.216.
3. Diet for a New America, no page ref.
4. Diet for a New America, pp. 172, 185.
- also, Campbell, speech, per above.
5. Diet for a New America, pp. 253-73.
6. Diet for a New America, pp. 308-09.
7. Diet for a New America, pp. 258-60.
-also, Judaism and Vegetarianism, pp. 42-43.
8. Diet for a New America, p. 264.
9. Mason, Jim, and Peter singer, Animal Factories, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, 1980, p. 63.
10. Beyond Beef, p. 170.
11. Diet for a New America, pp. 110-112.
-also, Coats, C. David, Old MacDonald's Factory Farm: The Myth of the Traditional Farm and the Shocking Truth about Animal Suffering in Today's Agribusiness,
Continuum Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1989, pp. 49, 53.
12. Old MacDonald's Factory Farm, p. 119
13. Judaism and Vegetarianism, p. 113.
-also, Mason, Jim, "Down on the factory Pharmacy," The Animals' Agenda, Monroe, CT, July/August, 1990, Vol. X, No. 6, p. 47.
14. Our food Our World: Realities of an Animal-Based Diet, compiled by the EarthSave Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA, March, 1992, p. 16.
15. Animal Factories, pp. 38-39 and 53-54.
16. Diet for a New America, p. 351.
17. Diet for a New America, 315-16, 326.
18. "Is our fish fit to Eat?" Consumer Reports: A Publication of Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY, Feb., 1992, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 103, 114.
19. Diet for a New America, pp. 314-16.
-also, Beyond Beef, p. 13.
-also, Is Our Fish Fit to Eat? pp. 112, 114.
20. "Is Our Fish Fit to Eat?" p. 103.
21. "Is Our Fish Fit to Eat?" p. 113.
22. Robbins, John, May All Be Fed, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York 1992 p.112-13
23. Diet for a New America, pp. 93, 110.
-also, Beyond Beef, p. 13.
24. Beyond Beef, p. 264.
25. Diet for a New America, p. 65.
--also, Pacelle, Wayne, Biomachines: "Life on the Farm Ain't What it used to Be," Vegetarian Times, Oak Park,
IL, Jan. 1989, Issue 137, pp. 31-34.
--also, Mason, Jim, "Chicken is Cheaper than Ever, But What are the Hidden Costs?" essay published by the Coalition for Non Violent Food, a project of Animal Rights International, New York, NY, (no pub. date, no page reference).
26. Chicken is Cheaper Than Ever, But What are the Hidden Costs? (no page reference).
-also, Old MacDonald's Factory Farm, p. 115.
-also, Resenfeld, Ph.D., et. al., "A Menu for food Safety Failures: What the Bush Administration is Serving Consumers," published by Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, Washington, D.C., June, 1992, p. 5.
27. Diet for a New America, pp. 301-03.
28. Diet for a New America, p. 303-04
-also, Biomachines, p. 65.
29. Croydon, Ireland, "New Four Food Groups Introduced," Vegetarian Voice, published by the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS), Dolgeville, NY, Vol. 18, No. 1, p.4.
-also, "Eating Well: Rethink Food Groups, Doctors Say," The New York Times, April 10, 1991, pp. C1 and C4.
30. Castelli, W., quoted in Barnard, N., The Power of Your Plate, Book Publishing Co., Summertown,TN, 1990, pp. 25-26.

31. Diet for a New America, pp. 351-52. -also, Judaism and Vegetarianism, p. 43.
32. Diet for a New America, pp. 374-76.
33. Diet for a New America, p. 351.
34. Beyond Beef, p. 1
-also, Animal Factories. p. 117.
-May All Be Fed. p.35
35. Diet for a New America, p. 353.
-also, Old MacDonald's Factory Farm. p.22.
36. Diet for a New America, p. 366-67.
37. Diet for a New America, p. 367.
-also, Our Food Our World. p. 4.
38. Beyond Beef, p. 1
-also, Klapper, M.D., Michael, "Water Worries: The Connection Between Animal Agriculture and the Water Shortage," EarthSave, the newsletter of EarthSave Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA, Vol. 2, No. 2 and 3, p. 8.
39. Beyond Beef, p. 162.
-also, Diet for a New America, pp. 297- 99
40. Diet for a New America, pp. 371-73.
-also, Animal Factories, pp. 84,88.
41. Boyd, Billy Ray, For the Vegetarian in You, San Francisco, CA, Taterhill Press, 1987, pp. 20-21.

42. Beyond Beef, The FARM Report, newsletter of Farm Animal Reform Movement, Bethesda, MD, Spring, 1992 p.6.
43. Specter, Michael, "The World's Oceans are Sending an SOS," The New York Times, May 3, 1992, p. E-5.
44. Mason, Jim, "Taking Stock From Farm to Slaughter," Animals' Agenda, Monroe, CT, April 1991, Vol. XI, No. 3, pp. 16-23.
-also, Old MacDonald's Factory Farm, pp. 102-03.

* Page 3 footnote, see 11/01/92 Vegetarian Times magazine, page 4 editorial.
* Page 4 footnote, Schell, Orville, Modern Meat, Random House, 1984.

MEANWHILE back at the ranch, E.F. "Bud" Loats, central-regional manager of Cyanamid Animal Industry Department (385 million in animal drug sales-'84), explains the thoughtful attitude that prevails in today's open frontier:
"I'm not sure what all the ruckus over drug resistance is about. I mean, you've got these animals on drugs in their feed.
Then five months after they're weaned, they're on a truck. Then they arrive at the packing plant and -boom!- they're gone. That's the end of that."

This document is largely a condensation of the flyer "101 reasons why I'm a vegetarian" by Pamela Teisler.

12.4 million Americans now consider themselves vegetarians, almost 7% of the population.
One million Americans per year are adopting some sort of vegetarian diet, about 20,000 a week.
The most frequently cited reason: health.
***

[Doug]

34. Meat industry defenders claim that livestock do not compete with humans for edible food because they live on forage humans cannot eat. Actually, the livestock population of the U.S. today, consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed more than five times the number of humans in the country. These animals are fed 80% of all the corn, 95% of all the oats, and 70% of all the grain grown in the U.S. In fact, 50% of all grain produced in the world is fed to livestock.

35. The world's cattle alone (not including other livestock such as pigs and chickens) consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people - nearly double the entire human population. Hundreds of millions of tons of grain go to animals while only 5 million tons of grain could adequately feed 15 million children throughout the world, the approximate number who starve to death every year.

36. Our dwindling supply of good water is directly tied to meat consumption. Over half of the total amount of water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock.

37. It takes an average of 2,500 gallons of water to produce a single pound of meat. According to Newsweek, "The water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer could float a destroyer". In contrast, it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat.

These are the primary reasons I became a vegetarian back in 1993. It's compassion for humans. We have millions of malnourished people in the world and we stuff grain into beasts instead of people. I don't know if these numbers still hold up today, though. I imagine they are worse than ever.

[Dardedar]

I've had cancer (melanoma), it isn't fun and it scares the shit out of you. I don't recommend it. If a customer hadn't pointed out a suspicious mole and highly recommended that I get it checked, I probably wouldn't be here now (advanced melanoma doesn't mess around, we caught it early, seven years ago).

So I am interested in this question of whether we have good evidence that eating meat is linked to cancer (probably not melanoma of course). I haven't looked at this topic in a decade or two, so apparently I'm not that concerned about it.

After a quick snoop around it seems the evidence is piling up. These are not small studies.

High Meat Consumption Linked to Heightened Cancer Risk
U.S. study finds the more red meat and processed meat you eat, the higher the risk

Excerpt:

"The more red meat and processed meat you eat, the greater your risk, the researchers from the National Cancer Institute concluded.

"Red and processed meats have been associated with an elevated risk with colorectal cancer. We investigated whether this association was also evident for cancers at other anatomic sites," explained lead author Amanda Cross, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). "This is the largest study to look at the effect of red and processed meat on multiple cancer sites, including rarer cancers, such as laryngeal and liver cancer."

For the study, red meats included beef, pork and lamb. Processed meats included bacon, red-meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats, cold cuts, ham, regular hot dogs and low-fat hot dogs.

Cross and her team from the National Institutes of Health and the AARP analyzed health data from 500,000 people aged 50 to 71 who participated in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study beginning in 1995-1996. They followed participants for about eight years, during which time they recorded 53,396 cases of cancer. In addition to meat consumption habits, the participants detailed other lifestyle choices such as smoking and exercise."

LINK

***
Study Links Red Meat To Cancer, Heart Disease
by PATTI NEIGHMOND

A lot of research has shown that eating red meat can increase your risk of heart disease and certain cancers, especially colon cancer. Now, a large study suggests that eating a lot of those juicy burgers and steaks may actually shorten your life. NPR's Patti Neighmond looked into what that study means for meat lovers.

PATTI NEIGHMOND: This was a large study, over half a million men and women over the age of 50. They answered questions about specifics of their diet, and then researchers documented who died over the next 10 years.

They found that people who ate the most red meat - that's beef, lamb and pork -were 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease or any type of cancer.

While the study's biggest weakness is that it relied on people's memories of what they'd eaten over the previous year, epidemiologist Michael Thun, with the American Cancer Society, says the findings support what research has found over the last 20 years: Limit the amount of red meat in your diet."

NPR transcript

***
Diets Rich In Red Meat May Be Risky
by ALLISON AUBREY

A federal study suggests that large amounts of red meat may increase the likelihood of dying from heart disease and cancer.
March 23, 2009
Eating large amounts of red meat may increase the likelihood of dying from heart disease and cancer, according to a large federal study of AARP members.

People who eat the highest levels of red meat and processed meats — such as hot dogs, bacon and cold cuts — are about 20 percent more likely to die of cancer compared with people who eat less than 5 ounces per week.

With heart disease, researchers found heavy red meat consumption increased the risk of death for men by 27 percent and for women by about 50 percent.

People whose diets included large amounts of white meat, like chicken and fish, had a lower risk of death.

The National Cancer Institute researchers say the increased risk of death is modest compared with other risk factors, such as smoking, and fit with previous research."

LINK

***
Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters, says study
• Striking difference found in risk of disease in blood
• Scientists acknowledge more research still needed

Fresh evidence from the largest study to date to investigate dietary habits and cancer has concluded that vegetarians are 45% less likely to develop cancer of the blood than meat eaters and are 12% less likely to develop cancer overall.

Scientists said that while links between stomach cancer and eating meat had already been reported, they had uncovered a "striking difference" in the risk of blood cancers including leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma between the groups. The study looked at vegetarians, fish eaters and people who ate meat.

Co-author Naomi Allen, from the Cancer Research UK epidemiology unit at Oxford University, said: "Previous research has found that processed meat may increase the risk of stomach cancer, so our findings that vegetarians and fish eaters are at lower risk is plausible. But we do not know why cancer of the blood is lower in vegetarians."

She said the differences in cancer risks were independent of other lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake and obesity...

The study also reported that the total cancer incidence was significantly lower among both the fish eaters and the vegetarians compared with meat eaters.

The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, is part of a long-term international study, the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (Epic).

Today's findings were based on a study of 61,000 people who scientists followed over 12 years. During this time, 3,350 participants were diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 68% (2,204) were meat eaters, 24% (800) were vegetarians and 9.5% (300) ate fish but no meat."

Guardian UK

***
Red & Processed Meat links to colon cancer
by Laura Hand
Posted: 06.04.2011

A new look at the link between bowel cancer risks and red and processed meat has some dietary guidelines, and while meats increase the cancer risk, the studies show that increased fiber drops the odds.
Dr. Rich O'Neill, with SUNY Upstate, says the World Cancer Research Fund report shows very little risk if you keep your red meat consumption at less than 18 ouces per week. But 3.5 ounces every day (=24.5 per week) the risk increases 17%, and if you eat 7 ounces daily (49 oz per week) the risk is 34% hgher.
O'Neill says eating increased amounts of processed meats, including ham, bacon, pastrami, hot dogs and sausages, poses double the risk of red meat. But, the conclusion that foods containing fibre protect against bowel cancer has been changed from 'probable' to 'convincing.'
O'Neill says the findings are based on 24 scientific study, not one random effort, and that an independent expert panel reviewed the many papers submitted in the areas since the last review in 2007."

CNY Central

See also: "Conclusions for other factors previously graded as convincing or probable were confirmed. These include convincing evidence that physical activity protects against colon cancer; and that red meat, processed meat, alcohol (in men), as well as body fatness and abdominal fatness, are causes of colorectal cancer." http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/cup/index.php

***

Red meat 'linked to cancer risk
Wednesday, 15 June, 2005,
There are health concerns over red meat

A major study has found fresh evidence linking eating red and processed meat and bowel cancer, scientists say.
The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) looked at the dietary habits of over 500,000 people across Europe over 10 years.

Bowel cancer risk was a third higher for those who regularly ate over two 80g portions of red or processed meat a day, compared to less than one a week.

EPIC's study is reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Since it began, 1,330 people have developed bowel cancer.

The study also found a low fibre diet increased the risk of bowel cancer.

Eating poultry had no impact but the risk for people who ate one portion or more of fish every other day was nearly a third lower than those who ate fish less than once a week.

Strong evidence

Lead researcher Professor Sheila Bingham, of the MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge, said: "People have suspected for some time that high levels of red and processed meat increase risk of bowel cancer, but this is one of the largest studies worldwide and the first from Europe of this type to show a strong relationship."

BBC NEWS

***
Breast Cancer Risk Linked To Red Meat, Study Finds

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 14, 2006

"Younger women who regularly eat red meat appear to face an increased risk for a common form of breast cancer, according to a large, well-known Harvard study of women's health.

The study of more than 90,000 women found that the more red meat the women consumed in their 20s, 30s and 40s, the greater their risk for developing breast cancer fueled by hormones in the next 12 years. Those who consumed the most red meat had nearly twice the risk of those who ate red meat infrequently."

Washington Post

***
Science News

Red Meat Linked To Breast Cancer
ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2007) — Eating red meat increases a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer,
according to new research from the University of Leeds.

"The findings are most striking for post-menopausal women – those with the highest intake of red meat, the equivalent to one portion a day (more than 57 grams) - run a 56 per cent greater risk of breast cancer than those who eat none.
Women who eat the most processed meat, such as bacon, sausages, ham or pies, run a 64 per cent greater risk of breast cancer than those who eat none.
Researchers at the University’s Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics have been tracking the eating habits and health of more than 35,000 women for the past seven years, and their latest findings are published in the British Journal of Cancer. Earlier findings, widely reported in January, showed that pre-menopausal women who have the greatest intake of fibre have cut their risk of breast cancer in half."

Science News

Etc.

[Dardedar]

But wait, we need to check in and get the other side from these folks over at FEEDSTUFFS...

***

Comprehensive report disputes cancer-meat link

(1/29/2010)
Rod Smith

A comprehensive report about the epidemiologic evidence surrounding cancer and consumption of red meat and processed meat was released to the cattle industry's human nutrition research committee at the convention today that drew conclusions supporting those from briefer reviews in 2008 and 2009.

The report states that all available evidence from epidemiological studies of a cancer-red meat/processed meat link "is not supportive" of a causal relationship, said Dr. Shalene McNeill, NCBA executive director of nutrition research.

The report was compiled by Dr. Dominik Alexander, a leading epidemiologist in the health sciences practice at Exponent Inc., and several associates, from evaluations of hundreds of epidemiologic studies across all kinds of cancers, according to the announcement about the report.

Alexander noted that cancer is the second-greatest cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease, and that one of every three Americans will be diagnosed with some type of cancer in her or his lifetime. Although a specific cause(s) for most cancer is not understood, he said researchers believe it stems from genetic, environmental, infectious and lifestyle factors and normally develops over several years.

This adds to the difficulty in identifying factors involved in carcinogenesis, he said.

"No mechanism for red meat (and processed meat) has been established as being responsible for increasing the risk of cancer in human studies . . . and the totality of available scientific evidence is not supportive of an independent association between red meat and processed meat and cancer," he said.

Alexander and Exponent were engaged two years ago to analyze the epidemiologic survey by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute of Cancer Research that the two groups said found "convincing" evidence of a cancer-red meat/processed meat link (Feedstuffs, Nov. 5, 2007). Alexander has twice before concluded that there is no such evidence (Feedstuffs, Feb. 25, 2008, and Aug. 3, 2009).

The report released this week was funded jointly by the beef and pork checkoffs, and a technical summary is available for $30 by calling the NCBA..."

Wanted to be fair and give the other side.

[Doug]

The report released this week was funded jointly by the beef and pork checkoffs, and a technical summary is available for $30 by calling the NCBA..."

The protest that studies don't show a causal relationship--without rebutting the correlation--sure sounds like an echo from the lying tobacco lobby in years past.

[Dardedar]

The protest that studies don't show a causal relationship--without rebutting the correlation--sure sounds like an echo from the lying tobacco lobby in years past.

Oh, it's a very big echo. Was reading some for the beef industry funded beef promotions this morning. It's pretty funny, and transparent when you know what you are looking for.

http://www.beefboard.org/news/101105Bre ... elease.asp

And:

http://www.countryworldnews.com/news-ar ... 17beef.php

It's amazing how much promotion a single person on a payroll can do. This woman has a very busy agenda shilling for beef, dawn to dusk:

DR. SHALENE McNEILL

She's cited constantly. For instance:

"Beef Industry Reminds Consumers that Protein Packed Beef a Vital Part of a Nutrient Dense Diet"

http://oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news ... 134532.php

[Applecrate]

The report released this week was funded jointly by the beef and pork checkoffs, and a technical summary is available for $30 by calling the NCBA..."

The protest that studies don't show a causal relationship--without rebutting the correlation--sure sounds like an echo from the lying tobacco lobby in years past.

The kind of study is important. Observational studies are not experiments, and cannot account for confounding variables (simply because it's not possible to think of them all). With regards to actually employing the scientific method, observational studies (which would be pretty much anything that a news article saying something is "linked" to something are about), only get you as far as forming an educated hypothesis. It's grounds to construct an experiment, being a controlled study/clinical study. Not grounds to go around touting the observational data as something that strongly implies -any- conclusion.

A couple of the above linked news articles are about observational studies that lump processed meat in with "red meat", which I hope seems.. less than useful for drawing conclusions about unprocessed meat, and the ones that are single studies are all observational. There's definitely something here worth looking at, but it's the clinical studies that would actually support conclusions solidly that are hard to get funding for.

The corn and grain industries exhibit remarkably slimy behavior at times as well. Pretty much any company that funds studies and has a product to sell exhibits similar behavior.

[Applecrate]

All the studies in the meat and cancer post lump processed meats in with red meats. Red meat is a big category on its own to begin with (pork has a very different chemical composition than ruminants, and is usually cured). Anything in that large category could be responsible for the positive association with cancer, especially the "processed meats." Or something not in that category at all (anything people that don't consume red meat tend to avoid in addition to red meat).

The study referenced from the article headlined 'Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters, says study' actually showed a higher incidence of colorectal cancer in vegetarians than meat eaters (EPIC-Oxford). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082

Even overall cancer in a study over the entire EPIC data set (EPIC-Europe) referenced in the BBC article farther down, red meat did not positively associate with cancer in some geographic locations (Postdam, Italy), suggesting confounding factors.

Neither of the above referenced studies that used EPIC data, which have been the largest studies with data on vegetarians and vegans to date separated red and processed meat, even though that data was separate when collected.

This study of EPIC-Europe finds processed meats to be problematic on their own:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870017

This study of the EPIC-Oxford data that -did- separate meat food groups found no statistically significant link with any meat group and colorectal cancer. (Though the odds ratio for processed meats was a bit stronger):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20437091

This Harvard meta-analysis on red and processed meat and metabolic and heart disease found a -strong- link with processed meat and -no- link with unprocessed red meat.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content ... 9.924977v1

[Dardedar]

What would be the precise definition of "processed meat?" Or is there even one? If it's meat plus "other ingredients" then we should (perhaps) be able to look at those other ingredients (nitrates, fillers etc.) on their own.

Would processed meat necessarily include all hamburger, hot dogs, lunch meats, sausage, patties, bacon? What percentage of all meat consumed in America would fall into the category of "processed meat?" I bet it''s the vast majority.

[Actually, no need to answer, I believe I've found the answer to this below]

If it's the processed part/category of ingesting meat that is going to get the blame for these consistent meat/cancer tendencies (how much of that meat in the China Study was "processed?"), it would be necessary to begin by at least having rather bright boundaries defining what it is, and what it is not.

Links of interest:

Eating Processed Meats, but Not Unprocessed Red Meats, May Raise Risk of Heart Disease and Diabetes, Study Finds --Science Daily

***
Enough is Enough: Processed Meat-Cancer Link Confirmed

Excerpt:

"Processed meat is so strongly linked with colorectal cancer that no one should ever eat it, according to a new report by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research.

The report—the most comprehensive ever conducted on colorectal cancer risk—found that this type of cancer is extremely preventable. How do you slash your risk? Say goodbye to processed meats—this includes bacon and hot dogs but also deli meats—and hello to fruits and vegetables.

The findings reaffirm the results of a landmark 2007 report by the same organizations showing “convincing” evidence that red and processed meat increased colorectal cancer risk. Findings from 10 new cohort studies were added to the 14 studies included in the 2007 report. The new report also upgrades fiber’s protective effects from “probable” to “convincing.”

***
The American Institute for Cancer Research says:

Red and Processed Meats: The Cancer Connection
Research has found that limiting the amount of red meat and avoiding processed meat reduces the risk of certain types of cancer.
What are red and processed meats?
In general, red meat is dark in color when raw. Examples include: Beef, Lamb, Pork

Processed meats are meats that have been preserved by smoking, salting, curing or adding other preservatives. Examples include:

Deli meats, such as sliced turkey and bologna, Bacon, Ham, Hot dogs

What’s the link to cancer?

Red Meat: According to AICR, eating more than 18 ounces of red meat per week increases the risk of colorectal cancer.

Researchers do not yet know exactly how red meat affects the development of colorectal cancer. Red meat contains compounds that have been shown to damage the lining of the gut and possibly promote cancer. Cooking red meat at high temperatures can also produce other cancer-causing compounds.

Processed Meat: Research shows that any amount of processed meat is linked to increased risk of colorectal cancer."

***

Processed meat consumption results in 67% increase in pancreatic cancer risk, says new research

Consuming processed meats increases the risk of pancreatic cancer, says new research conducted at the University of Hawaii that followed nearly 200,000 men and women for seven years. According to lead study author Ute Nothlings, people who consumed the most processed meats (hot dogs and sausage) showed a 67% increased risk of pancreatic cancer over those who consumed little or no meat products.
But researchers failed to accurately identify the culprit responsible for this increased risk of pancreatic cancer, says one author. The true cause of the heightened cancer risk is the widespread use of a carcinogenic precursor ingredient known as sodium nitrite by food processing companies, says nutritionist Mike Adams,...

Nearly all processed meats are made with sodium nitrite: breakfast sausage, hot dogs, jerkies, bacon, lunch meat, and even meats in canned soup products. Yet this ingredient is a precursor to highly carcinogenic nitrosamines -- potent cancer-causing chemicals that accelerate the formation and growth of cancer cells throughout the body. When consumers eat sodium nitrite in popular meat products, nitrosamines are formed in the body where they promote the growth of various cancers, including colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer, says Adams.

The new research on processed meats points to a chemical toxin as the cause of the increased cancer risk. A heightened cancer risk of 67% is "gigantic," warns Adams. "This is clearly not due to macronutrient differences. This is the kind of risk increase you only see with ingredient toxicity. Something in these processed meats is poisoning people, and the evidence points straight to sodium nitrite."
LINK

***
The folks over at "Meat Safety" disagree:

http://www.meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/41359/pid/41359

***
And this is interesting on the Casein issue:

Resistant starch prevents colonic DNA damage induced by high dietary cooked red meat or casein in rats

Volume 5, Issue 3 March 2006
Pages 267 - 272
DOI: 10.4161/cbt.5.3.2382

In previous studies we have shown that high levels of dietary protein (as casein) result in increased levels of colonic DNA damage, measured by the comet assay, and thinning of the colonic mucus layer in rats when dietary resistant starch (RS) is negligible. Feeding RS abolishes these effects. This study aimed to establish whether a diet high in protein as cooked red meat would have similar effects and whether RS was protective. Rats were fed a diet containing 15% or 25% casein, or 25% cooked lean red beef, each with or without the addition of 48% high amylose maize starch (a rich source of RS) for 4 weeks. As expected, high dietary casein caused a 2-fold increase in colonic DNA damage compared with a low casein diet and reduced the thickness of the colonic mucus layer by 41%. High levels of cooked meat caused 26% greater DNA damage than the high casein diet but reduced mucus thickness to a similar degree to casein. Addition of RS to the diet abolished the increase in DNA damage and the loss of colonic mucus thickness induced by either high protein diet. Caecal and faecal short chain fatty acid pools were also increased by inclusion of RS in the diet. Because DNA damage is an early step in the initiation of cancer, these findings suggest that increased DNA damage due to high dietary protein as cooked red meat or casein could increase colorectal cancer risk but inclusion of resistant starch in the diet could significantly reduce that risk." LINK

[Applecrate]

Yep, processed meat pretty much means cured or preserved (sausages and most pork products) And the common factor is the nitrites. We actually have some insight as to probable biochemical reasons for this.

As for the China study, it was a questionnaire/survey study that didn't differentiate, so it wouldn't have that differentiating data.
EPIC-Oxford was quite special in the realm of very large diet data sets as it's one of the few that have used food logs instead of just questionnaires, so we've got much more detailed data.

The rat study well... neither red meat nor large amounts of casein are naturally sound for a rat to ingest at all, it makes sense that they'd suffer major issues.
Incidentally, other studies have found that the other proteins in milk have a -cancer protective- effect in rats; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/b ... 8/art00005

It is supporting of the growing body of evidence that -lots- of foods are harmful on a low fiber diet (sugar especially.) Notice that the harmful effects, even though the food being fed to the rats was something rats should -never- eat, basically went away when fed enough fiber. Fiber is -extremely- important for intestinal health, and running food through guts that haven't had enough fiber is rough on the guts. There is evidence that humans used to eat -tons- of it, but the westernized diet is pretty much fiberless. Fibrous foods don't tend to keep well, are problematic to freeze, and as such are nearly nonexistent in our fast foods and convenience foods.

It mentions colonic mucous thickness, which the reduction of results in leaky gut syndrome. Basically this means that the barrier between what you're trying to digest and your bloodstream is way more permeable than it should be, and lots of substances that normally wouldn't be allowed into your bloodstream get into it. So you can see why intestinal health has far reaching effects, and can make foods that normally wouldn't be harmful harmful.

EDIT: ~5500 years ago our fiber intake was probably over 150g/day, almost all of it from vegetable-type plants. http://www.figgtree.com/Leach_EJCN_PDF_proof_2006.pdf USDA today recommends between 20 and 30, and suggests grains as the source, which are also evolutionarily novel in the human diet and have their own gut-health implications.

[Applecrate]

The folks over at "Meat Safety" disagree:

http://www.meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/41359/pid/41359

And here's the sneaky bit, they defend it by saying plants have tons of the same chemical we're talking about here, which is true. But It's not the sodium nitrite itself that is carcinogenic, it's nitrosamines. Nitrites form nitrosamines (known to be carcinogenic) in the presence of amines, which meat tends to have plenty of. However this reaction happens much more easily under heat, and there is some evidence that uncooked cured meats do not pose the same dangers as cooked cured meats.

[Dardedar]

Interesting.

If I am reading this right, it seems to suggest that the connection between red meat and cancer is stronger than the connection between processed meat and cancer. Excerpt:

"Subsequent to the report of the National Academy of Sciences, “Diet and Health” (11) , which implicated red meat as a causative factor in the etiology of colorectal cancer, two subsequent reports have reviewed the epidemiological evidence on meat and colorectal cancer risk (4 , 7) . The report of the WCRF3 concluded: “The evidence shows that red meat probably increases risk and processed meat possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer” (7) . The report from COMA judged that “there is moderately consistent evidence from cohort studies of a positive association between the consumption of red or processed meat and risk of colorectal cancer” (4)"

This from the American Association For Cancer research.

"Systematic Review of the Prospective Cohort Studies on Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk"

Summary of Main Findings.

In this exploratory meta-analysis, we found a positive association between all meat and red meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. Pooled results indicate that a daily increase of 100 g of all meat or red meat is associated with a significant 12–17% increased risk of colorectal cancer. The marginally significant between-study heterogeneity for all meat and red meat was explained by a number of study-level covariates (Table 3)⇓ . A significant 49% increased risk was found for a daily increase of 25 g of processed meat. The individual study estimates for processed meat, based on comparable levels of exposure, showed no detectable heterogeneity.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/439.long

Also, this study of Seventh Day Adventists, and a few others, are interesting too. Referenced here:

http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php

PS. My mom had colon cancer at age 55 (about 9 years ago, had surgery and lived), and I'll be having my first colonoscopy in two weeks. Hurray!

[Applecrate]

Interesting.

If I am reading this right, it seems to suggest that the connection between red meat and cancer is stronger than the connection between processed meat and cancer. Excerpt:

"Subsequent to the report of the National Academy of Sciences, “Diet and Health” (11) , which implicated red meat as a causative factor in the etiology of colorectal cancer, two subsequent reports have reviewed the epidemiological evidence on meat and colorectal cancer risk (4 , 7) . The report of the WCRF3 concluded: “The evidence shows that red meat probably increases risk and processed meat possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer” (7) . The report from COMA judged that “there is moderately consistent evidence from cohort studies of a positive association between the consumption of red or processed meat and risk of colorectal cancer” (4)"

Remember that "probable", "possible", etc. refer to the statistical significance, not the magnitude, of the findings. (The degree to which they believe the data looking the way it did was not due to chance). Despite the report finding a higher risk ratio for processed meat, the amount and context of the data they had make that finding not as reliable. Incidentally WCRF's reports now find the preventative effect of increased fiber intake "convincing", instead of "probable" or "possible".

Also, this study of Seventh Day Adventists, and a few others, are interesting too. Referenced here:

http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php

The paper cited is a polemic against meat. ( http://birdflubook.com/resources/Barnar ... 24_646.pdf ) It uses the data on Adventists to come up with fractions of different disease types that might be attributable to meat in order to make a case that "meat consumption" alone is responsible for a significant amount of healthcare costs. The paper itself is authored by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a pretty pro-vegan organization, which publishes the Cancer Project site that cites it, among several others, almost all of which are different cases against meat or animal product consumption.

Adventists themselves aren't the best subjects for diet studies either (especially -survey- studies), as they have a bias toward promoting their vegetarian diet (it's pretty important to them. They train "medical missionaries" for "health evangelism," among other things)

[Dardedar]

Also, this study of Seventh Day Adventists, and a few others, are interesting too. Referenced here:

http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php

The paper cited is a polemic against meat. ( http://birdflubook.com/resources/Barnar ... 24_646.pdf )

This from a fellow that directed me to read material from Minger! Someone's material isn't refuted because of a purported agenda. Their claims either fall or stand based upon their merit, as you know. I'm not so interested in that they are grumpy about meat, but rather whether the science they reference is sound.

It uses the data on Adventists to come up with fractions of different disease types that might be attributable to meat in order to make a case that "meat consumption" alone is responsible for a significant amount of healthcare costs. The paper itself is authored by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a pretty pro-vegan organization, which publishes the Cancer Project site that cites it, among several others, almost all of which are different cases against meat or animal product consumption.

Well, when one studies what meat is doing to our society, doesn't it make sense to have an opinion about that? Of course, that opinion is quite irrelevant to their claims, which either stand or fall upon their merit. But you don't address any of their claims.

Adventists themselves aren't the best subjects for diet studies either (especially -survey- studies), as they have a bias toward promoting their vegetarian diet (it's pretty important to them. They train "medical missionaries" for "health evangelism," among other things)

This makes no sense to me. About half of 7th Day Adventists are vegetarians, about half are not. This makes them an excellent subject for study. Snooping around I see:

"ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE RISK FACTORS IN MIDDLE-AGED SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST MEN AND THEIR NEIGHBORS"

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/1 ... f_ipsecsha

"A total of 34,192 California Seventh-Day Adventists (75% of those eligible) were enrolled in a cohort and followed up from 1976 to 1988."

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 61/13/1645

"Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists"

http://www.ajcn.org/content/48/3/739.abstract

"Colorectal Cancer: Molecules and Populations"

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/11/916.full

Standard peer reviewed science, finding the same thing over and over, whether it is looking at Adventists or not, or pointed out by Physicians on a Jihad Against Meat (PJAM), or not.

[Applecrate]

Also, this study of Seventh Day Adventists, and a few others, are interesting too. Referenced here:

http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php

The paper cited is a polemic against meat. ( http://birdflubook.com/resources/Barnar ... 24_646.pdf )

This from a fellow that directed me to read material from Minger! Someone's material isn't refuted because of a purported agenda. Their claims either fall or stand based upon their merit, as you know. I'm not so interested in that they are grumpy about meat, but rather whether the science they reference is sound.

It uses the data on Adventists to come up with fractions of different disease types that might be attributable to meat in order to make a case that "meat consumption" alone is responsible for a significant amount of healthcare costs. The paper itself is authored by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a pretty pro-vegan organization, which publishes the Cancer Project site that cites it, among several others, almost all of which are different cases against meat or animal product consumption.

Well, when one studies what meat is doing to our society, doesn't it make sense to have an opinion about that? Of course, that opinion is quite irrelevant to their claims, which either stand or fall upon their merit. But you don't address any of their claims.

Just thought I'd point it out, since "Meat Safety" and the "Beef Board" have already been brought up in this thread. Again, I'm not trying to defend the modern diet. The above data does indicate that there are problems with meat produced as we produce it today, in a modern western dietary context. Meat's not alone in that either. There are many issues with our modern diet that cutting meat consumption definitely -won't- save you from.

What I would defend is that meat products not stuffed with grain to make them fatter (or stuffed with preservatives), are not harmful to health in combination with a diet that includes a good amount of fiber from vegetables, not grains, as vegetables have much so much more fiber per calorie over grains, that just having some calories from meat won't significantly reduce the fiber intake.

Several of the studies we've looked at in this thread (esp. the colorectal cancer ones) are indicative that even the modernly-produced red meats are significantly less harmful in the presence of good amounts of fiber (but invariably the "meat eating" group is significantly lower in fiber than the vegetarian one, because in our western diets much of our fiber intake is from grain instead of green vegetables and therefore has to compete for a much larger portion of energy intake).

While not all adventists are vegetarians (in fact it's -probably- a good bit less than that 50% figure), it -is- part of their religion. Theologically, they believe that if you eat -any- meat, you must die in order to go to heaven, but if you don't, you can be "translated" to heaven without having to die, and that otherwise it's still really bad to eat the "unclean" meats. Clean meat they believe to be unhealthy, but not nearly as morally reprehensible, so many adventists still partake (since they're already doomed if they've ever had any). Health wise, they believe that Ellen White had a vision from God telling her about what is healthy to eat, and that meat is never healthy to eat. http://www.ivu.org/history/adventists/white.html

Adventists have played a large role in getting vegetarianism off the ground, having formed the SDADA http://www.sdada.org/history.htm to raise Adventist dietitians and get vegetarian material into the ADA, and are at least somewhat responsible for the ADA being more pro-vegetarian than it used to be.

[Dardedar]

Theologically, they believe that if you eat -any- meat, you must die in order to go to heaven, but if you don't, you can be "translated" to heaven without having to die, and that otherwise it's still really bad to eat the "unclean" meats. Clean meat they believe to be unhealthy, but not nearly as morally reprehensible, so many adventists still partake (since they're already doomed if they've ever had any). Health wise, they believe that Ellen White had a vision from God telling her about what is healthy to eat, and that meat is never healthy to eat. http://www.ivu.org/history/adventists/white.html

Interesting. I'll have to look into that (query some of my SDA customers). Here:

http://www.sdada.org/position.htm

they just go on about heath reasons. And it looks quite reasonable actually, if a little hardcore. Nothing about theology (but then, Scientology hardly goes into their theology in public, and with good reason!).